There’s a recent article in the NY Times about a case before the Supreme Court

on whether Florida’s Supreme Court violated the U.S. Constitution’s regulatory takings clause when it upheld a plan to create a state-owned public beach between private waterfront property and the Gulf of Mexico.

One point being made by the state of Florida is that they are saving the beach because they are adding sand to compensate for erosion. These efforts are very expensive, so I’d think the adjacent property owners are getting a reprieve here, and can argue for further work of this type as sea levels rise due to climate change, helping preserve their property values. Still, the property owners disagree that the resulting beachfront should belong to the public, and have taken this case to the Supreme Court.

As I understand it, many coastal states  stipulate that all beaches belong to the public, who always should be able to access the beachfronts (without causing damage, of course). This approach helps ensure the public can help make decisions about ocean-front development, one objective being to preserve coastal areas into the future.  Other states do not permit full access, and that appears be the case in Florida.